The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-2223.htm

Innovative
Development and validation culture in work
of a measurement scale of the teams

innovative culture in work teams

Martín Solís 299
Business school, Tecnologico de Costa Rica, Cartago, Costa Rica, and
Received 14 July 2018
Ronald Mora-Esquivel Revised 4 January 2019
Accepted 3 March 2019
Tecnologico de Costa Rica, Cartago, Costa Rica

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to develop and validate a scale to measure innovative culture in work teams of
the public sector (ICT).
Design/methodology/approach – A mixed research design was followed. An initial literature review
and a qualitative study identify the possible dimensions that give content to the construct of the innovative
culture. Subsequently, two quantitative studies are carried out to explore the measurement scale and provide
evidence of its reliability and validity.
Findings – The results show that the ICT construct is composed of ten dimensions and likewise, exhibit
internal consistency and evidence of validity.
Originality/value – This study attempts to provide an additional contribution to the conceptualization
and measurement of innovative culture, through the development of a scale that consolidates the different
dimensions proposed by the authors. Besides, the scale developed is the only one, as far as we know, that has
been created to evaluate innovative culture in work teams.
Keywords Innovation, Organizational culture, Work teams, Innovative culture
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
A relevant dimension that affects the development of innovation is that of organizational
culture (Yesil and Sozbilir, 2013; Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2012; Schneider et al., 2013;
Sackmann, 2011) because of its direct and indirect influences on the behavior of the
employees (Dobni, 2012). A solid and appropriate culture leads to positive results (Kim Jean
Lee and Yu, 2004) by creating common purposes and practices that guide organizational
action. According to Jung et al. (2007), it is one of the most significant factors involved in
generating change in organizations and modernization of public institutions. It is a force
that shapes the environment, decisions and interrelations that are established in an
organization, a seal of collective identity that may contribute to change and continuous
improvement.
Given this relevance, empirical studies are required to answer what dimensions
characterize the innovative culture (Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2012). Therefore, some
researchers have been involved in the creation of an innovative culture model, rather
than linking an existing culture model with innovation (Dombrowski et al., 2007;
International Journal of Innovation
McLaughlin et al., 2008; Hogan and Coote, 2014; Dobni, 2008; Jassawalla and Sashittal, Science
2002). The general approach to what is meant by innovative culture, in these Vol. 11 No. 2, 2019
pp. 299-322
investigations, differs substantially from one to another; however, in certain aspects, © Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-2223
they share dimensions and have overlapping criteria. For example, the customer DOI 10.1108/IJIS-07-2018-0073
IJIS orientation dimension of Martins and Martins (2002) is shared by Jamrog et al. (2006)
11,2 and Liu (2009), while the risk tolerance dimension of Bakovic et al. (2013) is considered
by Martins and Martins (2002) in their dimension of managerial support for innovation,
as it is by Gomes et al. (2015), in the dimension of stimulus to innovation.
This study attempts to provide an additional contribution to the conceptualization and
measurement of innovative culture, through the development of a scale that consolidates the
300 different dimensions proposed by the authors, to measure innovative culture in work teams
of the public sector (named in the document as ICT from now on). An instrument of this
nature is needed to provide a tool for directors and supervisors to assess the innovative
potential of work teams and to identify cultural features which can play a role in the
promotion of actions that stimulate innovative behavior and innovation in work teams.
This study also provides a novel contribution to the public sector, as most of the studies
that have focused on measuring innovative culture have been carried out in private
companies, with the exception of research by Whittinghill et al. (2015); although, this does
not focus on the culture of the work teams, as was done in the present investigation.
Following this line, the developed scale is the only one, as far as we are concerned, that
has been created to evaluate innovative culture in work teams. According to Bellou (2008),
several authors consider very simplistic to think that organizational culture is uniform
among all the employees of an organization, as there are groups within organizations, which
develop their values, assumptions and even perspectives (Jermier et al., 1991). Therefore, it is
relevant to measure the culture in teams.
It is also worth mentioning that the innovation topic must be analyzed at different levels
(individual, team and organizational) because the factors that promote innovation at one
level can inhibit it at another, so each level must be explored to better understand the
innovation phenomenon (Anderson et al., 2004).
The study follows a mixed methodological design of a sequential exploratory nature
(Creswell, 2014). This method involved starting with literature review and a qualitative
study, based on in-depth interviews, to define the construct dimensions. Then, two
quantitative studies were conducted to develop and validate a measurement scale for the
construct.
The rest of this paper has been divided into four sections. Section 1 consists of a literature
review which briefly summarizes the state of the art of studies on organizational culture and
innovation, based on previous studies mainly carried out in the private sector. Section 2
describes the methodological issues of the study. Section 3 presents the results of the
qualitative study and quantitative studies. Section 4 presents the conclusions, discussion
and lines for future research.

Theoretical background
Innovative culture definition
Most authors defined organizational culture as values, beliefs, assumptions, behaviors that
are shared by the members of a group or organization (Cameron and Quinn, 2005; Denison,
1996; Schein, 1983). These elements are spread through symbols, speeches, mutual
experience, myths, organizational mission (Jani
cijevi
c, 2011; Denison, 1996; Schneider et al.,
2013). As a result, meanings are generated about how to behave in an organization, creating
a collective identity (Jani
cijevi
c, 2011; Schneider et al., 2013). Since this conceptualization, the
innovative culture in teams is defined as values, beliefs and assumptions that promote
innovation and are shared by the members of a group.
Dimensions of innovative culture Innovative
After the literature revision, 15 studies were found that are oriented to define and culture in work
operationalize the innovation culture construct. Four of them were conceptual (Rao and
Weintraub, 2013; Shani and Divyapriya, 2011; McLaughlin et al., 2008; Dombrowski et al.,
teams
2007), one was a qualitative study (Jassawalla and Sashittal, 2002) and the remaining were
quantitative (Martins and Martins, 2002; Jamrog et al., 2006; Dobni, 2008; Liu, 2009;
Jucevicius, 2010; Navickas and Juzenas, 2013; Bakovic et al., 2013; Hogan and Coote, 2014;
Gomes et al., 2015; Whittinghill et al., 2015). 301
From the review of these studies, it was determined that the dimensions of the construct
differ substantially from one author to another. However, in specific aspects, they share
ideas and overlap criteria. Based on these studies and others that have analyzed the concept
of organizational culture and innovation simultaneously, we extracted eight dimensions that
summarize the most ideas about the content of innovative culture. These represent a
starting point of likely theoretical dimensions of innovative culture in work teams. Next, the
dimensions will be sum up as follows.
External learning. Some authors refer to the organizational culture that boosts
innovation through searching and acquisition of knowledge and experience (Liu, 2009;
McLaughlin et al., 2008; Jucevicius, 2010). Others allude elements related to the learning of
the external context as the acquisition of knowledge from the customers, learning of what
organizations are doing, appreciation for the training and education of the collaborator
(Dobni, 2008; Martins and Martins, 2002; Jamrog et al., 2006). According to literature,
learning practices improve the ability to recognize opportunities for entrepreneurship
(Škerlavaj et al., 2010), contribute to the development of new services (Liu, 2009) and have a
positive effect on the innovative behavior of collaborators (Fernández and Moldogaziev,
2013). Learning from external agents such as clients, universities or other organizations is
also one of the primary drivers of incremental and radical innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009;
Chang et al., 2012; McLaughlin et al., 2008).
Teamwork. There are elements associated with values of teamwork like cooperation and
collaboration (Hogan and Coote, 2014; Jucevicius, 2010; Dombrowski et al., 2007; Jassawalla
and Sashittal, 2002; Jamrog et al., 2006), fluid internal communication (Hogan and Coote,
2014; Navickas and Juzenas, 2013), communication (Gomes et al. (2015) and teamwork
(Caldwell and O’Reilly, 2003) that authors have considered as part of the innovative culture
concept. Teamwork is essential for the creation of innovation (Hogan and Coote, 2014;
Martins and Martins, 2002; Caldwell and O’Reilly, 2003) because of trigger creativity (Luke
et al., 2010; Gilson and Shalley, 2004), but also because implementing a creative idea requires
participation of different individuals. Besides, team cohesion leads members to feel safe and
free to change the status quo (West and Wallace, 1991).
Reward. According to some researchers (Hogan and Coote, 2014; Shani and Divyapriya,
2011; Navickas and Juzenas, 2013), the reward to improve can become a cultural feature that
favors innovation because it generates motivation to do different things. Additionally, there
are empirical studies (Fernández and Moldogaziev, 2013; Lægreid et al., 2011; Yusof and
Abidin, 2011) that have shown a direct relationship between reward and innovation.
Freedom of expression. The literature suggests that an atmosphere of trust and security
in interacting fosters innovation because risk-taking is developed (Anderson and West,
1998) and an openness to express even controversial ideas (Rao and Weintraub, 2013).
Besides, it is fomented the freedom to question orders received and respect for divergent
opinions (De Faria and de Alencar, 1996). Morcillo et al. (2007) considered necessary to create
a climate of trust in the structure of the organization to promote collective learning that
ultimately affects the generation of innovation (Jucevicius, 2010).
IJIS Task-oriented approach. The concepts of task orientation (Anderson and West, 1998),
11,2 performance-oriented culture (Yusof and Abidin, 2011; Lægreid et al., 2011; Kim, 2007)
and success (Hogan and Coote, 2014) are similar dimensions found in studies related
with innovative culture. These have in common the shared concern to achieve a higher
standard of performance and standing out. This dimension is very highly supported by
the findings of a meta-analysis carried out by Hülsheger et al. (2009), which determined
302 that one of the most significant predictors of innovation in work teams is task
orientation. Furthermore, when a task-oriented approach is used, group members are
more willing to work harder to overcome obstacles when they tried to innovate
(Eisenbeiss et al., 2008).
Clear and shared mission. There are dimensions in the innovative culture concept that
highlight the existence of a shared mission by the employees, with clear objectives of what is
intended to achieve. An element associated with this idea is the long-term planning and
vision because, to establish a robust mission and goals, constant long-term planning is
necessary. Dimensions related to these ideas are a well-defined organizational strategy
(Gomes et al., 2015); purpose (Martins and Martins, 2002); clarity goals (McLaughlin et al.,
2008); identification with the mission, vision and objectives of the organization (Anderson
and West, 1998); appropriation of the organization objectives (Abdullah et al., 2014); and
long-term orientation (Yusof and Abidin, 2011). According to Gilson and Shalley (2004),
when there is a sense of joint purpose and shared meaning of the work, individuals get the
motivation to improve and innovate. After analyzing the answer of 108 public managers and
83 private managers, Moon (1999) found that, when there is a clarity in mission,
entrepreneurship is boosted because it generates flexibility to take risks, motivation and
better profiling of the strategies to innovate.
Openness to change. A common idea in most concepts of innovative culture is the
reference to elements associated with openness to change and constant searching for
innovation. Examples of dimensions related to this idea are: intention to be innovative
(Dobni, 2008), support for innovation (Liu, 2009; Whittinghill et al., 2015), support for
innovation by managers (Martins and Martins, 2002; Navickas and Juzenas, 2013), openness
and flexibility toward new ideas (Hogan and Coote, 2014), taking risks through
experimentation and transformation of the status quo (Hogan and Coote, 2014; Jassawalla
and Sashittal, 2002; Jamrog et al., 2006), generation of ideas and risky decision-making
(Martins and Martins, 2002), high-risk tolerance (Jucevicius, 2010; Bakovic et al., 2013) and
tolerance to error and openness to risk (Caldwell and O’Reilly, 2003). Kim (2007) found that
one of the greatest drivers of public entrepreneurship is an organization’s positive attitude
toward change, risk and uncertainty. In turn, Caldwell and O’Reilly (2003) found that, in
teams where cultural norms accept changes and risk-taking, individuals are usually willing
to propose solutions and creative ideas to respond to problems.
Participation. In the literature, it has been stated that, in an innovative culture, the
collaborator should have freedom and autonomy to make decisions (Bakovic et al., 2013;
Whittinghill et al., 2015; McLaughlin et al., 2008). Besides, the organizations should empower
the employees by make them participants in the decision-making process (Hogan and Coote,
2014). Dombrowski et al. (2007); Yusof and Abidin (2011) and Cameron and Quinn (2005)
pointed out the importance of stimulating employee participation in decision-making to
encourage them to assume additional roles, such as making efforts to innovate. Fernández
and Moldogaziev (2013) found that the discretion to change the work process and the
involvement in the decision-making generate empowerment, and this, in turn, influences the
innovative behavior.
Method Innovative
Procedures culture in work
A mixed research design was used. A qualitative study is first carried out to define the
content of the construct dimensions along with the findings of the literature review. Two
teams
quantitative studies are then carried out to generate and validate the measurement scale.
The study, thus, entailed several stages, following the recommendations of Slavec and
Drnovsek (2012), which are described below.
303
First stage: content domain
This stage involves defining the dimensions that make up the construct; for this purpose, a
review of studies that defined innovative culture and studies that analyzed the relationship
between organizational culture and innovation was carried out. This review generated the
eight dimensions described in the previous section. However, to strengthen the construction
of the conceptual content based on the empirical findings from the public sector, a
qualitative study was carried out by applying semi-structured interviews in a face-to-face
mode to 16 team supervisors from 14 public institutions. These institutions are dedicated to
various activities, such as health, education, economy, agriculture, port administration,
leading electoral matters, document registration, transport, scientific discussion, social
assistance and statistics.
In each interview, a guide containing open-ended questions aimed at investigating the
following aspects was used:

innovations implemented by the team;

elements that promoted or hindered the development of innovations implemented
by the team;

elements that cause innovative ideas to not be implemented; and

elements that can positively or negatively influence innovation in the team.

The interviews lasted an average of 40 min and were recorded with the consent of the
interviewee. They were later transcribed and processed using the NVIVO 10.0 software.
Verbal data processing was carried out seeking to identify dimensions of the organizational
culture of the team that could promote innovation. To do this, textual citations that referred
to cultural elements, or elements that could become part of the culture, and which were in
turn associated with the generation of innovation were extracted.
In a first coding cycle, relevant text or citations were identified; provisional coding
enables to have a start list of codes obtained from the previous review of literature; then,
sub-coding and structural coding methods were used to organize citations into first
preliminary categories and to gather topics lists (Saldaña, 2015). In a second coding cycle, an
elaborative coding method was conducted to refine the grouping of themes and thematic
subcategories and categories (Saldaña, 2015). The presentation and synthesis format
recommended by Vargas-Halabi et al. (2015) was used as a reference.
From the literature reviewed and the results of the qualitative study, ten innovative
culture dimensions were identified, which will become the benchmark for the generation of
the measurement scale.

Second stage: generation of items and validity of the response process

The previous phase allowed the generation of 51 items to measure the ten dimensions of
ICT. Of these, 26 were written by the research team itself, while the others were taken from
the literature. Because the latter were in English, they were submitted to a double
IJIS translation process (back-translation) following the recommendations of Beaton et al. (2000)
11,2 to adapt them to the Spanish language. To assess the validity of the response process, six
cognitive interviews were carried out using the 51 items, following the guidelines and norms
established by Smith-Castro and Molina (2011). Only 22 items were modified as a result of
these interviews.

304 Third stage: selection of items and preliminary exploration of the ICT construct
The ICT instrument was applied to a sample of 231 students who were pursuing a
postgraduate degree with an emphasis in public administration and who also worked in a
public institution in Costa Rica. The students responded to the items based on the culture
they perceived in the team in which they worked.
To select only those items that guarantee discrimination between the ten dimensions, an
analysis based on the partial least squares (PLS) statistical method was applied using Smart
PLS 3.0 software. A second-order measurement model (MM) was carried out with the ten
dimensions derived from a macro factor called innovative culture. The criterion of Fornell
and Larcker cited by Hair et al. (2017) was then applied to determine if the ten dimensions
discriminated among themselves. If discrimination between dimensions was not found, the
item in the cross-loading matrix that showed both of the two following characteristics was
eliminated:
(1) it had the lowest loading among all the items that make up the dimension to which
it belongs; and
(2) it had the highest correlation (among all the items with which it is grouped) with
another dimension that does not discriminate with respect to the dimension to
which the item was originally assigned.

If after excluding the items and executing the model again there was no discrimination
between some dimensions shown in the Fornell–Larcker matrix, the process was repeated
again, until discrimination was obtained. In total, 13 items were eliminated from the original
scale, and 38 remained. Subsequently, an exploratory factor analysis was applied with the
38 items to explore the best grouping structure of the items (Worthington and Whittaker,
2006; Hinkin et al., 1997). The final product of this stage consisted of a measurement scale
reduced to 38 items out of the 51 originally proposed, which could be interpretable in light of
the available literature.

Fourth stage: validity of internal structure

This stage involved the application of the measurement scale with 38 items and other scales
to a second sample of 1,055 public officials who worked in 183 work teams of 12 public
institutions, seeking to obtain evidence of concurrent and discriminant validity. A
confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis were applied to the data from this
sample using Cronbach’s a, to obtain a measurement scale appropriate to the labor context
of interest of the study.

Fifth stage: concurrent and convergent validity

Concurrent validity was assessed through the verification of correlation between the ICT
scale and the innovative behavior of the group (IBG) scale, as well as between the ICT scale
and the percentage of work team individuals with high scores on the individual’s innovative
behavior of the individual (IBI) scale. Convergent validity was analyzed by verifying
correlations between the ICT scale and the required creativity of the group (RC), as well as
the ICT scale with the perceived performance of the group (PPG) scale. The scales used to Innovative
evaluate the constructs mentioned will be explained in detail later in this study. culture in work
teams
Sample
As mentioned in the previous section, two samples were used in the quantitative study. The
first sample was made up of students who were taking postgraduate courses, with an
emphasis in public administration, who also worked in a public institution in Costa Rica. In 305
total, 231 subjects were interviewed, of whom 58 per cent were women and 33 per cent were
supervisors of work teams. The average age of the subjects was 37 years (37 per cent under
32 years, 41 per cent between 33 and 44 years, 20 per cent between 45 and 56 years, 2 per
cent greater than 56 years), with an average of 11 years spent working in the institution, and
an average of six years working in that work team. The subject with the least time spent
working in a unit had done so for three months. Data collection was carried out between the
months of September and October 2016. The subjects in this first sample responded to the
instruments that contained the ICT initial scale of 51 items and a scale of innovative
behavior of the team they belong.
In a second sample, the study unit consisted of work teams in Costa Rican public
organizations. The approach of Kozlowski and Ilgen (2006) was used to define the term
“work team”. The informant unit was team members who had worked more than three
months on the team. The instrument was applied on paper in situ and contained the ICT
scale (of 38 items) and three other scales, namely, IBI, RC and PPG.
Attempts were made to interview most of the team’s collaborators, but this was not
always possible for various reasons:

some of them were not present at that moment in the organization;

some were in meetings or otherwise occupied; and

some did not want to participate in the interviews. It is worth mentioning that
interviewing most members of the teams involved a second visit.

We collected 1,055 interviews of 183 work team members from 12 public institutions who
agreed to be a part of the study, corresponding to 74 per cent of the employees of those
teams. Each work team had between 4 and 28 people. Of the total number of interviewees, 52
per cent were women and their average age was 41.6 years old (21 per cent under 32 years,
42 per cent between 33 and 44 years, 28 per cent between 45 and 56 years, 8 per cent greater
than 56 years). The average time spent working in the team was six years, and the average
time working in the institution was ten years. The subject with the least time spent working
in their team had done so for three months.

Additional measurement instruments

As already mentioned, other measurements were used to evaluate the concurrent and
convergent validity of the ICT scale, and here we describe each one of them. The first is the
scale of IBG. This construct is defined as the intention to create, introduce and apply new
ideas within a work role, team or organization, seeking to improve performance (Janssen,
2000). To measure it, five items were taken from De Jong and Den Hartog (2010), although
two of them were considerably modified during the pilot phase, because the cognitive
interviews suggested that they measure practically the same things as other items on the
scale. A five-point Likert scale (1 = not frequent to 5 = very frequent) was used.
The second scale measures IBI. This construct is defined in the same way as the IBG,
with the difference that it is adapted to the individual level. It is measured with the six items
IJIS of Scott and Bruce (1994) and a five-point Likert scale (1 = not frequent to 5 = very frequent).
11,2 The third measurement scale is the RC, evaluating the degree to which it is necessary for a
work team to be creative to fully comply with their work responsibilities. This is measured
with four items taken from Kim et al. (2010) and a five-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree
to 5 = totally agree). The last one is the perceived performance of the work team (PPT). For
its measurement, five items by Jung and Sosik (2002) and a response scale of five points (1 =
306 totally disagree to 5 = totally agree) were used.
For concurrent validity, the IBG and IBI scales were used because they are variables
associated with the search for, and generation of, innovation (Janssen, 2000; De Jong and
Den Hartog, 2010), and an innovative culture must, therefore, be a predictor of the
innovative behavior of the team and the individual. For convergent validity, RC is used,
because it is expected that the more creativity is demanded in a team, the greater the
association with ICT. Finally, there are several studies that have shown an association
between organizational culture and performance (Hartnell et al., 2011; Chan et al., 2004) and
innovative culture and performance at the organizational level (O’Cass and Viet Ngo, 2007
Cameron and Quinn,2005), which is why RC is expected to be associated with ICT.

Results
Qualitative study
A total of 86 relevant citations refer to aspects that can promote innovation and that are, in
turn, related to organizational culture. These aspects were classified into 21 categories that,
based on their related content, were distributed among ten cultural dimensions; eight of
them support the dimensions pointed out in the literature review and two of them are novel
(flexibility with the norms and collective psychological capital). Table I summarizes each of
these dimensions, with their thematic categories and their representative textual citation as
a reference to exemplifying the category. The table also presents the percentage of the
citations that make up each dimension to the total citations.
Lastly, it is important to highlight that the categories reflect the diversity of elements
contained in the dimensions described in the literary review. The two additional dimensions
that emerge from the qualitative data can be justified by the findings of other investigations
as shown later.
From the content analysis of the qualitative study and the literature review, the
dimensions of innovative culture were defined. Next, each of them is specified.
External learning. Interest in learning from the external context through a constant
search for information and knowledge from sources external to the organization, paying
attention to the demands of users of the services provided by the work team, searching for
links with organizations and work teams outside the team and openness to training.
Teamwork. A culture of teamwork is the one in which fluid communication, constant
coordination and cooperation, integration and group unity are fostered.
Recognition of achievements. This is defined as the practice of recognizing achievements
and good performance. It is focused on verbal recognition, because normally, public
organizations are not allowed to provide extraordinary incentives for the generation of
innovation. In addition, according to the findings of the qualitative study, incentives do not
necessarily have to be monetary to motivate and encourage groups to innovate.
Freedom of expression. A culture in which people are encouraged to express their ideas
freely and sincerely, without fear of being judged or suffering any negative consequences.
Task-oriented approach. Commitment to achieving high performance standards and
constant effort to do so, as well as to excel in carrying out tasks.
 Innovative
Representative citation Category Dimension
culture in work
Interview 1. [In response to the aspects that Coordination and Teamwork (11.6%) teams
promote innovation]. Every month, we have communication between
coordination activities, where we follow-up on collaborators
pending issues and where we plan the
innovative ideas we have, mostly projects. No
tasks really, but projects 307
Interview 3. [What happens when ideas are Trust and integration
proposed and there is no trust]. Then they even among collaborators
begin to have arguments like “Oh, if you want to
work so hard and you know so much, you do it”.
Right! So, if differences are emphasized,
unfortunately we ourselves hinder the work
*Interview 2. [In reference to factors that can Dissemination of internal
drive innovation]. Here, there is a lot of knowledge
knowledge that can be rescued, and it is
important to promote it and spread it because
there is knowledge that is only in some groups,
not in all of them, so it is important to rescue
and promote it
Interview 8. [In reference to factors that may Proactive search for External learning
promote innovation]. We see what other external information and (27.9%)
institutions are doing, so we could implement knowledge
and adapt here what they are doing
Interview 5. Let us say we enter into a process Support for maintaining
with Intel. A project that we had with Intel for links and collaborative
the improvement of internal processes; we work with external
worked a lot on the subject of time control and organizations
the topic of follow-up on the projects
Interview 14. Here, they worry a lot about what Attention to the demands
the user is. To have better service for the user, of users of services
satisfaction surveys are planned and
everything, where they publicize or recommend
improvements for the services
Interview 6. Advances in technology, and Support for training
having those advances benefit us; it is, therefore,
important that we keep ourselves updated
through training; and the director of strategy is
the main advocate for this
Interview 5. Many things have to be supported; Promotion of monetary or Recognition of
an environment that favors creativity, non-monetary incentives achievements
incentives for people to contribute ideas and (7.0%)
creativity. Incentives can be monetary and non-
monetary
Interview 16. [In reference to the factors that Collaborator Participation
affect favor innovation]. What we have done is empowerment (5.8%)
that people obtain power over what they do,
which perhaps is something that was not Table I.
happening previously. When people start to Dimensions of ICT,
have power over their processes and take according to
responsibility for their activities, things improve qualitative study
(continued) findings
IJIS
11,2 Representative citation Category Dimension

Interview 5. The guidelines simply come from Collaborator involvement

the top down, and perhaps, there are no in decision-making
opportunities for people to contribute different
ideas and other inputs
308 Interview 11. I do not know why we make fun of Freedom of expression Freedom of
people, and when someone proposes something expression
that is not really intelligent, we mock the (2.3%)
suggestion; so, at times, people do not feel very
moved to be creative
Interview 5. Yes, I said that one of the Focus on continuous Task orientation
characteristics of the group is its commitment. I improvement and (9.3%)
always say that, internally, whenever things are excellence
done well, they can be improved; there is a sense
of excellence in seeking improvement
Interview 12. [In reference to the factors that Effort and commitment to Shared mission
favor innovation]. Here, things are very different the work (7.0%)
from other institutions. If we have to stay at
night for a conference, we stay and do not ask
for overtime. You work because you really want
to. We have a very enthusiastic group
Interview 16. We had to analyze the entire Clear and shared
institutional strategic plan and adapt the entire organizational strategy
IT strategic plan to support the institutional
strategic plan; that is where all these initiatives
came from
Interview 11. But maybe we have difficulties in Planning
planning for the long term. It is difficult to
structure a whole scheme to achieve such
planning, and sometimes, it is difficult to move
forward with many things
Interview 8. The higher-level administrators Openness of management Openness to change
have to be open to innovations proposed by staff to innovation (10.5%)
who are experts in these things, because they
are experts; I also think that administrators
have to be open to change
Interview 7. I can tell you that there is a team Willingness to evolve
that has always been open to evolution and
change that facilitates the work, although some
of its members have worked in the institution
for many years
Interview 3. There is another type of resistance Suppression of fear to
that is based on bad intentions, which is to novelties
oppose ideas for opposition’s sake, and this
harms organizations. “I’ve been doing the same
thing for twenty years, and now we’re going to
change?”
Interview 4. [In reference to the factors that limit Flexibility with respect to Flexibility with
innovation] The rules are much more respected, norms or regulations norms and
even though they were implemented 20 years regulations
ago (15.1%)
Table I. (continued)
 Innovative
Representative citation Category Dimension culture in work
Interview 6. Something that affects us a lot are Openness to confronting
teams
long and tedious procurement processes for norms and regulations
contracting; sometimes, we have the budget and
we do not have the time to use it, because it is
very tedious to go through appeals and 309
obtaining approval of the government
comptroller. All that has to be taken into
consideration; sometimes, approval of contracts
must be passed to the next budget period, and in
that period, there is no longer any budget
Interview 9. The marked negativity, but it was a Optimism Psychological
negativity that even once stayed, and having a capital
professional who could resume that project. But (3.5%)
everything was to the point that in the end, they
asked the minister to give them some more time.
Then there is also a limitation that is the attitude
that people assume in the face of different
situations Table I.

Clear and shared mission. A shared conception of what is to be achieved, together with
constant planning to achieve it. A clear and shared strategy helps to identify more clearly
the needs that really require innovation. In addition, when innovative ideas are considered
as part of a strategy, it is easier to obtain support from other institutional actors to develop
them.
Openness to change. This is defined as openness to change to new ideas and to risks that
accompany innovation.
Participation. A culture in which collaborators are encouraged to make decisions about
the work they do and to provide ideas and suggestions.
Flexibility with norms and regulations. Several texts of the qualitative study show that
regulations and norms in the public sector impose rigidity or requirements that impede the
execution of changes, which requires a culture that is more flexible and open to confronting
public sector norms. This dimension is also based on Kearney et al. (2008); Rainey (1999) and
Rao and Weintraub (2013), who emphasize the adverse effects of controls and bureaucracy
on the generation of innovation. Therefore, this dimension is defined as flexibility with
norms and regulations and openness to change them.
Psychological Capital. Taking as references the interviews and conceptualization of
psychological capital of Youssef and Luthans (2007), this dimension is defined as that culture
which develops an environment of optimism about the present and future success and
maintains the confidence necessary to achieve goals. Resistance and perseverance are also
promoted to face problems and recover from adversity. According to Shani and Divyapriya
(2011), a positive mentality is more creative because it generates self-confidence and regards
mistakes as learning opportunities. Other authors whose findings support this dimension are
Green et al. (2004) and Avey et al. (2008), who point out that a positive culture is associated
with change and risk-taking, the setting of goals and the fulfillment of objectives.

Selection of items and exploration of the construct in Sample 1

The selection of items that allowed discrimination between the ten dimensions using the
Fornell–Larcker criterion with PLS-SEM led to discarding 13 items from the initial scale of
IJIS 51 items. The 38 items that allowed discrimination between the dimensions were grouped as
11,2 follows: four in mission, four in psychological capital, three in task orientation, six in
teamwork, three in openness to change, four in non-compliance with norms and regulations,
three in freedom of expression, three in participation, three in recognition of achievements
and five in external learning.
Subsequently, an exploratory factor analysis with maximum likelihood and Promax
310 oblique rotation was performed to find the empirical structure of the construct. The number
of factors to be extracted was defined by executing a parallel analysis because, according to
Glorfeld (1995), several studies have shown that this is the best method to use when defining
the number of factors. The parallel analysis suggested three factors as ideal; these results
are shown in Table II.
The first factor contains, essentially, high (greater than 0.40) and unique (without
loadings greater than 0.40 with other factors) loadings with dimensions of openness to
change, openness to external learning and flexibility with norms and regulations. All of
these items reflect flexibility regarding new ideas and openness to knowledge. For this
reason, the factor will be called flexibility. The second factor incorporates items of the
dimensions of shared mission, psychological capital, task orientation and teamwork. When
analyzing these four dimensions carefully, it was observed that they have in common a
collective directionality toward the fulfillment of goals and a positive sensation about the
future; this factor is, therefore, called positive directionality. The third factor groups mainly
the items related to the dimensions of employee participation, recognition of achievements
and freedom of expression. All of them have in common providing collaborators with
security and power, and this factor will, therefore, be referred to as empowerment.
There are seven items that do not have loadings greater than 0.40 with only one factor. In
addition, there are two items that do not properly fit into the dimension with which they had
their highest loading: item I48_TO, which was assigned to the first factor, rather than to the
second factor, where it fits best, and item I46_TW, which was assigned to the third factor,
rather than to the second one, where four items related to teamwork are found.

Confirmatory factor analysis in Sample 2

The data collected in the second sample allowed confirmatory factor analyses to be carried
out to identify a better-adjusted solution when different MMs were compared. This
comparison is also carried out to verify if the degree of adjustment of the best MM
guarantees the validity of the scale’s internal structure (Santiesteban, 2009; Herrero, 2010).
MMs were run with the individual responses and MM with the responses added at the team
level. In Table III, we describe what each MM consists of.
Table IV shows the results of adjustment indicators of the four MMs with responses at
the individual level, while in Table V, responses are aggregated at the team level. All the
adjustment indicators, in both tables, indicate that the proposed ten-dimensional theoretical
model has the best fit.
MM3 and MM2 represent the solution with ten dimensions. The adjustment indicators
are similar in both, even the confidence intervals of the RMSEA overlap. Despite this, MM3
is preferred because it has more degrees of freedom and is mathematically equivalent to
MM2.
The adjustment indicators of MM3, with responses at an individual level, allow
validation of the construct’s internal structure. For example, the RMSEA is less than 0.08,
which indicates an acceptable adjustment (Diamantopoulos et al., 2000). In addition, the CFI,
GFI and AGFI indices are higher than 0.90, in accordance with the recommendations of
Type of item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Innovative
culture in work
I44_TO* 0.56 0.41 0.11 teams
I25_EL 0.69 0.13 0.06
I35_EL 0.92 0.08 0.1
I45_EL 0.7 0.02 0.03
I8_FN 0.58 0.13 0.01
I22_FN 0.63 0.05 0.04 311
I36_FN 0.93 0.12 0.07
I26_OC 0.65 0.12 0.12
I37_OC 0.53 0.09 0.26
I1_CM 0.04 0.76 0.05
I11_CM 0.14 0.94 0.02
I30_CM 0.13 0.51 0.2
I47_CM 0.05 0.77 0.08
I20_PC 0.19 0.55 0.17
I34_PC 0.4 0.62 0.18
I51_TO 0.3 0.56 0.02
I2_TW 0.09 0.51 0.33
I12_TW 0.09 0.58 0.16
I5_TW 0.05 0.52 0.32
I10_TW 0.2 0.72 0.32
I42_TW 0.18 0.2 0.51
I13_FE 0.38 0.11 0.54
I28_FE 0.29 0.02 0.52
I40_FE 0.26 0.07 0.72
I8_PA 0 0.06 0.78
I23_PA 0.21 0.02 0.61
I9_RA 0.24 0.11 0.91
I27_RA 0.17 0.16 0.59
I33_RA 0.01 0.1 0.79
I41_PCþ 0.24 0.18 0.33
I50_PCþ 0.26 0.26 0.38
I16_TO 0.36 0.42 0.05
I31_ELþ 0.32 0.24 0.23
I7_ELþ 0.24 0.27 0.2
I32_FN* 0.29 0.44 0.08
I17_OCþ 0.38 0.31 0.14
I29_PA 0.16 0.26 0.43
I15_TWþ 0.21 0.35 0.29
Table II.
Notes CM = clear mission, EL = E=external learning, FE = freedom of expression, FN = flexibility with Exploratory factor
norms and regulations, OC = openness to change, PA = participation, PC = psychological capital, RA =
recognition of achievements, TO = task orientation, TW = teamwork. *Assigned to a different factor from analysis with 38
the one where most of the items of its dimension are found. þDoes not have a high loading with only one items applied to
factor; N = sample size Sample 1, N = 231

Diamantopoulos et al. (2000). The MM3 adjustment indicators, adding the responses at the
team level, are less favorable, but also suggest that the adjustment is acceptable.

Reliability and descriptive statistics for results – Sample 2

Table VI shows that the ten dimensions of the proposed scale have a Cronbach’s a
coefficient equal to or greater than 0.80, indicating consistency within each dimension. The
value is 0.96 for the total scale, which can be classified as very good (DeVellis, 2012). The
IJIS MM Description
11,2
MM1 Assumes that the construct of innovative
culture is one-dimensional, and therefore, all
items only load on one factor
MM2 Assumes that the construct is made up of
ten dimensions that are significantly
312 correlated with each other
MM3 Assumes that there are ten dimensions that
are the result of a second-order latent
variable called innovative culture
MM4 Represents the configuration generated
through exploratory factor analyses. This
model has three latent variables, which are
grouped into another second-order latent
variable called innovative culture. The
latent variables are: positive directionality,
empowerment and flexibility. This model is
Table III. executed with 29 items, as it excludes the
ICT construct nine items that did not load properly with a
measurement models factor in the exploratory factor analysis
Objective
Determine whether the construct is really
multidimensional or better fits a one-
dimensional solution (Wright et al., 2012)
Determine if the theoretical proposal
obtained from the qualitative study and
supported by literature review is the best
solution
Determine if the theoretical proposal
obtained from the qualitative study can be
represented with a more parsimonious
model than the MM2. The MM2 and MM3
are mathematically equivalent (Bollen,
1989), but the third is preferable because it
is more parsimonious and allows
accounting for corrected covariation errors
between the first-order factors (Gerbing and
Anderson, 1984)
Determine if the proposal suggested by the
AFE is the best solution

Absolute Parsimony Incremental

Measurement models gl x 2/gl GFI RMSEA_Li RMSE_Ls AGFI CFI

Table IV. M1. Order 1_Factor 1 665 6.30 0.885 0.070 0.073 0.866 0.864
Adjustment M2. Order 1_Factor 10, 38 items 620 4.10 0.940 0.052 0.056 0.921 0.914
M3. Order 2_Factor 10, 38 items 655 4.40 0.925 0.055 0.059 0.911 0.920
indicators for the
M4. Order 2_Factor 3, 29 items* 374 6.10 0.921 0.067 0.072 0.902 0.903
confirmatory factor
analysis of ICT, N = Note: *The first-order configuration with the three latent variables that make up the innovative culture
1,055 individuals construct generates the same result as the second-order configuration

Absolute Parsimony Incremental

Measurement models gl x 2/df GFI RMSEA_Li RMSE_Ls AGFI CFI

Table V. M1. Order 1_Factor 1 665 2.60 0.91 0.114 0.124 0.897 0.801
Adjustment M2. Order 1_Factor 10, 38 items 620 1.99 0.95 0.068 0.079 0.932 0.887
M3. Order 2_Factor 10, 38 items 655 2.07 0.94 0.071 0.081 0.93 0.871
indicators for the
M4. Order 2_Factor 3, 29 items* 662 2.42 0.92 0.084 0.093 0.901 0.828
confirmatory factor
analysis of ICT, N = Notes: *The first-order configuration with the three latent variables that make up the innovative culture
183 teams construct generates the same result as the second-order configuration
Dimensions Items M SD a OC EL FE PA RA CM FN PC TO TW
Innovative
culture in work
OC 3 4.0 1.1 0.820 teams
EL 5 3.9 1.1 0.850 0.75
FE 3 3.8 1.3 0.860 0.76 0.71
PA 3 4.1 1.2 0.840 0.78 0.74 0.80
RA 3 3.7 1.4 0.910 0.73 0.74 0.75 0.83
CM 4 4.2 1.2 0.890 0.74 0.74 0.68 0.78 0.72 313
FN 4 3.8 1.1 0.800 0.73 0.66 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.63
PC 4 4.3 1.0 0.840 0.80 0.75 0.73 0.83 0.78 0.83 0.67
TO 3 4.5 1.1 0.870 0.73 0.69 0.63 0.72 0.63 0.74 0.56 0.82
TW 6 4.0 1.2 0.930 0.82 0.79 0.77 0.83 0.79 0.82 0.69 0.85 0.77
ICT 38 4.0 1.0 0.960 0.89 0.87 0.86 0.91 0.87 0.88 0.79 0.92 0.83 0.93 Table VI.
Descriptive statistics,
Notes: M = mean; SD = Standard deviation; OC = openness to change; EL = external learning; FE =
freedom of expression; PA = participation; RA = recognition of achievements; CM = clear mission; FN = confidence and
flexibility with norms and regulations; PC = psychological capital; TO = task orientation; TW = teamwork; correlations between
ICT = innovative culture in work teams dimensions

correlations between the dimensions were between 0.63 and 0.86, while the average
correlation between dimensions is 0.74.

ICT aggregation indices and other constructs in results – Sample 2

The ICT construct has an average Rwg above the threshold of 0.70, indicating that there is
sufficient homogeneity in the responses (Helfrich et al., 2012). In fact, there is no work team
with an Rwg lower than 0.70. This implies that there is sufficient homogeneity in the
answers given by individuals of the same team to permit them to be added at the team level
(Helfrich et al., 2012). The ICC2 is 0.74, which is also above the threshold of 0.70 suggested in
the literature (Helfrich et al., 2012). The measurements of perceived performance, innovative
team behavior and required creativity scales show Rwgs lower than 0.70 in 12, 31 and 18
work teams, respectively. The data compiled from interviews in those teams are excluded
when it necessary to add scores of the subjects at the team level to evaluate convergent and
concurrent validity.

Convergent and concurrent criterion validity in results – Samples 1 and 2

Concurrent validity is evaluated by analyzing the correlations of ICT–IBG and ICT–PI. The
correlation of ICT–IBG is analyzed using the first sample (Table VII). As the reporting unit
of the two constructs is the same, not only the simple correlation is analyzed, but also the
partial correlation controlled by a marker variable that is intended to capture a possible
common variance bias, as suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2012). The marker variable is
constructed by averaging three items that measure the noise that exists in the workplace. As
can be seen in Table VII, the simple and partial correlation is very similar, indicating that
the relationship between variables is not affected by common variance bias. The value of the
correlation coefficient is statistically significant and high, providing strong evidence of
concurrent validity.
With the second sample, the simple and partial correlation is analyzed, controlling for the
common variance bias, between ICT and PI. In this case, the marker variable is constructed
by averaging three items intended to measure suitability of the noise, lighting and
ventilation of the space where work teams are located. Once again, the values and
IJIS significances of the correlation coefficients provide evidence for concurrent validity
11,2 (Table VII).
Convergent validity is analyzed by the simple and partial correlations (controlling with a
marker variable) between ICT–RC and ICT–PPG, obtained using data of the second sample.
These correlations were estimated at the team level, which implies that responses of
individuals have to be added together. To do this, the scores were averaged. However, this
314 should only be done for the teams where there is sufficient homogeneity of responses among
individuals of the same team. When there were work teams whose Rwg index was lower
than 0.70 in the RC and PPG scores, as noted in the homogeneity section, it was decided to
exclude their data from correlation calculations.
The results reveal that simple and partial correlations are very similar, so it may be
assumed that the simple correlation is not affected by a common variance bias. All of the
correlations obtained are statistically significant, and the value of the coefficient is sufficient
to guarantee the existence of convergent validity.

Conclusion
This study proposed the design and validation of a scale to measure innovative culture in
work teams. To achieve this goal, a mixed research design was used. The qualitative study
and literary review allowed identification and justification of ten possible organizational
culture dimensions linked to innovation in work teams in the public sector. Later, a
quantitative study, with two study samples, one exploratory and one confirmatory,
provided evidence of the validity and reliability of the measurement scale.
The composition of the ICT construct shows consistency with what has been published
in the literature. The dimensions of the construct contain a large part of the diversity of
cultural elements associated with innovation presented in three of the main research projects
aimed at measuring innovative organizational culture (Dobni, 2008; Martins and Martins,
2002; Hogan and Coote, 2014), although at an organizational level, rather than at the level of
work teams. On the other hand, the ICT scale incorporates elements of studies that are in
some way related to the topic of organizational culture and innovation in work teams. One of
these studies is that of Caldwell and O’Reilly (2003). The four norms that these researchers
associate with the generation of innovation are accommodated in the dimensions of
openness to change, teamwork and flexibility with norms of the ICT scale.
Another of these studies is that of Anderson and West (1998). The four dimensions that
these researchers identify as components of the climate for innovation are related to the
dimensions of shared mission, teamwork, freedom of expression and task orientation in the

Score Type Pearson’s R

IBG Simple 0.77*

Partial 0.72*
IBI Simple 0.38*
Partial 0.35*
RC Simple 0.30*
Partial 0.33*
PPG Simple 0.81*
Table VII.
Partial 0.77*
Correlations between
ICT and other Notes: IBG = innovative team behavior; PI = percentage of individuals with an IBI score greater than 4;
variables RC = required creativity of the work team; PPG = perceived performance of the work team *p < 0.05
ICT scale. The findings that have been presented in this study suggest that the ICT scale Innovative
proposed here is broad enough to accommodate and take into account a large part of the culture in work
diversity of cultural elements that have been proposed as innovation drivers. The final items
of the scale are in the Appendix.
teams

Limitations and lines for further research

This study has two limitations, which in turn, become avenues for further research. The first 315
and most important of these is not having analyzed prospective validity with data about the
number and implementation of innovative ideas to verify the relationship between scores on
the scale and generation of innovation. Although it is true that an analysis of this nature
would help to determine in greater detail the criterion validity of the scale, it implies
additional research about how to measure innovation in the public sector, as research in this
area is incipient and has left many questions about how to carry out this measurement
(Arundel et al., 2013). Therefore, a future line of research is to create a reliable instrument for
measuring the generation and implementation of innovative ideas in public sector work
teams, to be used in a subsequent evaluation of the prospective validity of the ICT scale
proposed in this study.
A second limitation has to do with the detection of significant correlations (from 0.30
to 0.50) between the items that measure the bias of the common variance method and the
ICT items in both samples. Although it is true that the bias of the common variance
method did not affect the correlation between the ICT measurement and the criterion
measures, it could have affected the relationship between items and dimensions of ICT. It
is possible that the proximity between items and their similarity in the response scale
caused a common denominator, or that the general perceptions members of work teams
have, affected the way in which they responded to all the items about culture, causing a
common variance among them. However, these assumptions require further
methodological research that can shed light on the causes of this problem to propose
approaches to solve it. It is even likely that this is a problem that has affected other
investigations of organizational culture, which has not been detected or reported by
researchers. It is, therefore, suggested, as a practice, that future research related to the
topic of organizational culture should report whether the internal structure of the scale
has been affected by a common variance bias.
On the other hand, future studies could focus on replicating this scale in samples of work
teams that operate in other contexts, seeking to verify if it maintains the same internal
structure, as well as evidence on validity and reliability. If this were the case, it could become
a solid instrument for the evaluation and promotion of innovative culture in work groups,
making it possible to construct performance criteria for public sector institutions. This could
also be used as a point of reference for public organizations to carry out internal diagnoses
with respect to culture and innovation in work teams.
Another research possibility is to focus on understanding the relationships that exist
between ICT and the innovative climate model in work teams of Anderson and West (1998),
based on the empirical data.

Implications of the study

In the academic area, defining the content of the ICT construct provides a theory for
research of innovation determinants in work teams. It, therefore, offers a valuable
contribution to explaining the innovative behavior of employees within dynamics of their
teams toward the generation of innovation in public organizations.
IJIS In the field of public management, both the ICT and the MM conceptual models
11,2 developed in this study are a first step toward the consolidation and development of
diagnostic tools to be used by public institutions, to assess whether certain work teams have
an organizational culture that promotes innovative behavior by employees and facilitates
the generation of innovation. They can also assist in the identification of areas for
improvement of team culture and organizational environments.
316
References
Abdullah, N.H., Shamsuddin, A., Wahab, E. and Hamid, N.A.A. (2014), “The relationship between
organizational culture and product innovativeness”, Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 129, pp. 140-147.
Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1998), “Measuring climate for work group innovation: development
and validation of the team climate inventory”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 235-258.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C.K. and Nijstad, B.A. (2004), “The routinization of innovation research: a
constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 147-173.
Arundel, A., O’Brien, K. and Torugsa, A. (2013), “How firm managers understand innovation:
implications for the design of innovation surveys”, in Gault, F. (Ed.), Handbook of Innovation
Indicators and Measurement, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp. 88-108.
Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S. and Luthans, F. (2008), “Can positive employees help positive organizational
change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors”, The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 48-70.
Bakovic, T., Lazibat, T. and Sutic, I. (2013), “Radical innovation culture in Croatian manufacturing
industry”, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 74-80.
Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F. and Ferraz, M.B. (2000), “Guidelines for the process of cross-
cultural adaptation of self-report measures”, Spine, Vol. 25 No. 24, pp. 3186-3191.
Bellou, V. (2008), “Identifying organizational culture and subcultures within Greek public hospitals”,
Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 496-509.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), “A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models”, Sociological
Methods and Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 303-316.
Caldwell, D.F. and O’Reilly, C.A. (2003), “The determinants of team-based innovation in organizations:
the role of social influence”, Small Group Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 497-517.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2005), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the
Competing Values Framework, John Wiley and Sons, EEUU.
Chan, L.L., Shaffer, M.A. and Snape, E. (2004), “In search of sustained competitive advantage: the
impact of organizational culture, competitive strategy and human resource management
practices on firm performance”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-35.
Chang, Y.C., Chang, H.T., Chi, H.R., Chen, M.H. and Deng, L.L. (2012), “How do established firms
improve radical innovation performance? The organizational capabilities view”, Technovation,
Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 441-451.
Creswell, J.W. (2014), A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research, 4th ed., Sage Publications.
CA.
De Faria, M.D.F.B. and De Alencar, E.M.S. (1996), “Estímulos e barreiras à criatividade no ambiente de
trabalho”, Revista de Administração da Universida de São Paulo (RAUSP), Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 50-61.
De Jong, J. and Den Hartog, D. (2010), “Measuring innovative work behavior”, Creativity and Innovation Innovative
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 23-36.
culture in work
Denison, D.R. (1996), “What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars”, Academy of Management
teams
Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 619-654.
DeVellis, R. (2012), Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Sage, CA.
Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J.A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL: A Guide for the 317
Uninitiated, Sage, CA.
Dobni, C.B. (2008), “Measuring innovation culture in organizations: the development of a generalized
innovation culture construct using exploratory factor analysis”, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 539-559.
Dobni, C.B. (2012), “Organizational factors that promote entrepreneurship and innovation: an
exploratory model”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 182-199.
Dombrowski, C., Kim, J.Y., Desouza, K.C., Braganza, A., Papagari, S., Baloh, P. and Jha, S. (2007),
“Elements of innovative cultures”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 190-202.
Eisenbeiss, S.A., van Knippenberg, D. and Boerner, S. (2008), “Transformational leadership and team
innovation: integrating team climate principles”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6,
pp. 1438-1446.
Fernández, S. and Moldogaziev, T. (2013), “Employee empowerment, employee attitudes, and
performance: testing a causal model”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 490-506.
Gerbing, D.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1984), “On the meaning of within-factor correlated measurement
errors”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 572-580.
Gilson, L.L. and Shalley, C.E. (2004), “A little creativity goes a long way: an examination of teams’
engagement in creative processes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 453-470.
Glorfeld, L.W. (1995), “An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the
correct number of factors to retain”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 377-393.
Gomes, G., Machado, D.D.P.N. and Alegre, J. (2015), “Determinants of innovation culture: a study of
textile industry in Santa Catarina”, Brazilian Business Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 99-122.
Green, K.W., Jr, Medlin, B. and Whitten, D. (2004), “Developing optimism to improve performance: an
approach for the manufacturing sector”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 104
No. 2, pp. 106-114.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, CA.
Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y. and Kinicki, A. (2011), “Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness:
a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4, pp. 677-694.
Helfrich, C., Blevins, D., Kelly, A., Gylys-Colwell, I. and Dubbert, P. (2012), “Using different intra-class
correlations to assess inter-rater reliability þ inter-rater agreement: example of organizational
readiness to change from three implementation studies”, paper presented at Fifth Annual NIH
Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation, March 19-20, 2012, Rockville.
Herrero, J. (2010), “El análisis factorial confirmatorio en el estudio de la estructura y estabilidad de los
instrumentos de evaluaci
on: un ejemplo con el cuestionario de autoestima CA-14”, Psychosocial
Intervention, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 289-300.
Hinkin, T.R., Tracey, J.B. and Enz, C.A. (1997), “Scale construction: developing reliable and valid
measurement instruments”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 100-120.
IJIS Hogan, S.J. and Coote, L.V. (2014), “Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: a test of
Schein’s model”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8, pp. 1609-1621.
11,2
Hülsheger, U.R., Anderson, N. and Salgado, J.F. (2009), “Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a
comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 5, pp. 1128-1145.
Jamrog, J., Vickers, M. and Bear, D. (2006), “Building and sustaining a culture that supports
318 innovation”, People and Strategy, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 9-19.
Jani
cijevi
c, N. (2011), “Methodological approaches in the research of organizational culture”, Economic
Annals, Vol. 56, pp. 69-99.
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behavior”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 287-302.
Jassawalla, A.R. and Sashittal, H.C. (2002), “The cultures that support product-innovation processes”,
Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 42-54.
Jermier, J.M., Slocum, J.W., Jr, Fry, L.W. and Gaines, J. (1991), “Organizational subcultures in a soft
bureaucracy: resistance behind the myth and facade of an official culture”, Organization Science,
Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 170-194.
Jucevicius, G. (2010), “Culture vs. cultures of innovation: conceptual framework and parameters
for assessment”, presented at ICICKM2010 – Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Intellectual Capital, knowledge Management and Organisational Learning:
ICICKM.
Jung, D.I. and Sosik, J.J. (2002), “Transformational leadership in work groups: the role of empowerment,
cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance”, Small Group Research,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 313-336.
Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H.T., Bower, P., Whalley, D., McNally, R. and Mannion, R. (2007),
“Instruments for the exploration of organizational culture”, Working Paper, Scothub.
Kearney, C., Hisrich, R. and Roche, F. (2008), “A conceptual model of public sector corporate
entrepreneurship”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 295-313.
Kim, Y. (2007), “A multidimensional model of public entrepreneurship”, PhD dissertation, Rutgers The
State University of New Jersey.
Kim Jean Lee, S. and Yu, K. (2004), “Corporate culture and organizational performance”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 340-359.
Kim, T.Y., Hon, A.H. and Lee, D.R. (2010), “Proactive personality and employee creativity: the effects of
job creativity requirement and supervisor support for creativity”, Creativity Research Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Kozlowski, S.W. and Ilgen, D.R. (2006), “Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams”,
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 77-124.
Lægreid, P., Roness, P.G. and Verhoest, K. (2011), “Explaining the innovative culture and activities of
state agencies”, Organization Studies, Vol. 32 No. 10, pp. 1321-1347.
Liu, S. (2009), “Organizational culture and new service development performance: insights from
knowledge intensive business service”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 371-392.
Luke, B., Verreynne, M.L. and Kearins, K. (2010), “Innovative and entrepreneurial activity in the
public sector: the changing face of public sector institutions”, Innovation, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 138-153.
McLaughlin, P., Bessant, J. and Smart, P. (2008), “Developing an organizational culture that facilitates
radical innovation in a mature small to medium sized company: emergent findings”, Working
Paper SWP-04/2005, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield.
Martins, E. and Martins, N. (2002), “An organizational culture model to promote creativity and Innovative
innovation”, Journal of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 58-65.
culture in work
Moon, M.J. (1999), “The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: does organization matter?”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 31-43.
teams
Morcillo, P., Rodriguez-Anton, J.M. and Rubio, L. (2007), “Corporate culture and innovation: in search of
the perfect relationship”, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, Vol. 4 No. 6,
pp. 547-570.
Naranjo-Valencia, J.C., Jiménez, D.J. and Sanz-Valle, R. (2012), “>Es la cultura organizativa un
319
determinante de la innovaci
on en la empresa?”, Cuadernos de Economía y Direcci
on de la
Empresa, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 63-72.
Navickas, J. and Juzenas, K. (2013), “Innovativeness and organizational culture analysis of the large
Lithuanian production companies”, Presented at Proceedings of 18th International Conference
Mechanika.
O’Cass, A. and Viet Ngo, L. (2007), “Market orientation versus innovative culture: two routes to superior
brand performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 868-887.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 539-569.
Rainey, H.G. (1999), “Using comparisons of public and private organizations to assess innovative
attitudes among members of organizations”, Public Productivity and Management Review,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 130-149.
Rao, J. and Weintraub, J. (2013), “How innovative is your company’s culture?”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 54 No. 3, p. 29.
Sackmann, S.A. (2011), “Culture and performance”, in Ashkanasy, N., Wilderom, C. and Peterson, M.
(Eds), The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate, Sage Publications, pp. 188-224.
Saldaña, J. (2015), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, CA.
Santiesteban, C. (2009), Principios de Psicometría, Editorial SINTESIS, Madrid.
Schein, E.H. (1983), “The role of the founder in creating organizational culture”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 13-28.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G. and Macey, W.H. (2013), “Organizational climate and culture”, Annual
Review of Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 361-388.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of individual
innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 580-607.
Shani, N. and Divyapriya, P. (2011), “Developing creative and innovative culture in organization”,
International Journal of Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 52-57.
Škerlavaj, M., Song, J.H. and Lee, Y. (2010), “Organizational learning culture, innovative culture and
innovations in South Korean firms”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 37 No. 9,
pp. 6390-6403.
Slavec, A. and Drnovsek, M. (2012), “A perspective on scale development in entrepreneurship
research”, Economic and Business Review for Central and South-Eastern Europe, Vol. 14
No. 1, p. 39.
Smith-Castro, V. and Molina, M. (2011), La Entrevista Cognitiva: Guía Para su Aplicaci
on en la
Evaluaci
on y Mejoramiento de Instrumentos de Papel y Lápiz. (Cuaderno Metodol
ogico, 5),
Universidad de Costa Rica, San José.
Vargas-Halabi, T., Mora-Esquivel, R. and Acuña, C. (2015), “Cultura organizativa e innovaci
on: un
análisis temático en empresas de Costa Rica”, TEC Empresarial, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 7-18.
West, M.A. and Wallace, M. (1991), “Innovation in health care teams”, European Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 303-315.
IJIS Whittinghill, C., Berkowitz, D. and Farrington, P.A. (2015), “Does your culture encourage innovation?”,
Working paper, EEUU: Defense Acquisition University.
11,2
Worthington, R.L. and Whittaker, T.A. (2006), “Scale development research: a content analysis
and recommendations for best practices”, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 34 No. 6,
pp. 806-838.
Wright, R.T., Campbell, D.E., Thatcher, J.B. and Roberts, N. (2012), “Operationalizing multidimensional
constructs in structural equation modeling: recommendations for IS research”, Communications
320 for the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 30, pp. 367-412.
Yesil, S. and Sozbilir, F. (2013), “An empirical investigation into the impact of personality on individual
innovation behaviour in the workplace”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 81,
pp. 540-551.
Youssef, C.M. and Luthans, F. (2007), “Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: the impact of
hope, optimism, and resilience”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 774-800.
Yusof, N.A. and Abidin, N.Z. (2011), “Does organizational culture influence the innovativeness of
public-listed housing developers?”, American Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 7,
pp. 724-733.
Appendix Innovative
culture in work
*Item Dimension teams
1 Cuando enfrentamos dificultades propias de nuestras tareas, somos muy PC
insistentes en sacar adelante lo que nos proponemos
2 En mi unidad de trabajo ponemos gran energía a alcanzar las metas PC
3 En mi unidad de trabajo hay una sensaci
on de seguridad de que se alcanzará el PC 321
éxito en las tareas
4 En mi unidad de trabajo siempre se ve el lado bueno de la cosas con respecto a PC
nuestro trabajo
5 Esta unidad de trabajo tiene una misi
on clara que le otorga sentido y rumbo a CM
nuestro trabajo
6 Mi unidad de trabajo se caracteriza por una planificaci
on constante del trabajo CM
que hacemos
7 Esta unidad de trabajo tiene estrategias claras para cumplir sus metas CM
8 Comparamos continuamente nuestro progreso con los objetivos fijados CM
9 En nuestra unidad de trabajo acostumbramos a retroalimentarnos con los EL
usuarios del servicio que brindamos
10 En esta unidad de trabajo las personas están constantemente buscando EL
informaci
on en fuentes externas a la organizaci
on para ampliar el conocimiento
del trabajo que se hace
11 En esta unidad de trabajo mantenemos enlaces con organizaciones externas EL
para aprender de lo que ellos hacen
12 En mi unidad de trabajo se fomenta que las personas se capaciten y adquieran EL
nuevos conocimientos
13 En mi unidad de trabajo es común el trabajo colaborativo con organizaciones EL
externas
14 En esta unidad de trabajo hay disposici
on de ser flexibles con las normas y FN
procedimientos para ser más agiles
15 En mi unidad de trabajo somos poco burocráticos FN
16 En mi unidad de trabajo hay mucha disposici
on de romper con la burocracia FN
para facilitar las tareas que realizamos
17 En mi unidad de trabajo se hacen esfuerzos por cambiar las normas y reglas FN
que limitan ser más ágiles
18 En mi unidad de trabajo las personas pueden expresar libremente lo que FE
piensan sin temor a ser criticadas duramente por los demás
19 Las personas se sienten seguras de expresar sus opiniones sobre temas e ideas FE
controversiales
20 En mi unidad de trabajo es habitual que las personas expresen de manera FE
honesta lo que piensan del trabajo que realizan los demás
21 En esta unidad de trabajo las situaciones de fracaso se toman como una OC
oportunidad de aprendizaje
22 En nuestro departamento somos abiertos y atentos a los cambios OC
23 En mi unidad de trabajo se estimula a tomar riesgos para mejorar lo que se OC
hace
24 Nuestra jefatura utiliza las sugerencias de las personas que integran el unidad PA
de trabajo para tomar decisiones de asuntos que nos afectan
25 Cada miembro cree que puede tener un impacto positivo en el grupo PA
26 Nuestra jefatura anima al unidad de trabajo a expresar ideas y sugerencias PA
27 En mi unidad de trabajo las personas acostumbran a reconocer los logros y el RA
buen desempeño de los demás compañeros Table AI.
(continued) Items by dimension
IJIS
11,2 *Item Dimension

28 En esta unidad de trabajo se demuestra agradecimiento por los esfuerzos de RA

cada empleado
29 La jefatura de mi unidad de trabajo acostumbra a reconocer los logros y el buen RA
desempeño de los trabajadores
322 30 Nuestra unidad de trabajo cree firmemente en la importancia del trabajo duro TO
31 Existe una preocupaci
on real entre los miembros de mi unidad de trabajo por TO
alcanzar los más altos estándares de rendimiento
32 En mi unidad de trabajo se hace todo el esfuerzo por alcanzar el mejor TO
rendimiento
33 En mi unidad de trabajo nos mantenemos mutuamente informados de los TW
asuntos relacionados con el trabajo que realizamos
34 En esta unidad de trabajo las personas actúan en equipo y con un sentido de TW
pertenencia en todo lo que hacemos
35 En esta unidad de trabajo nos preocupamos porque el conocimiento de cada TW
persona se transmita a los demás compañeros
36 En mi unidad de trabajo , valoramos mucho la coordinaci
on entre los diferentes TW
equipos de trabajo
37 En mi unidad de trabajo se acostumbra a coordinar adecuadamente las TW
funciones que se realizan en conjunto (o equipo)
38 En este unidad de trabajo nos esforzamos mucho por compartir conocimientos TW
y experiencias con los propios compañeros

Notes: CM = clear mission, EL = external learning, FE = freedom of expression, FN = flexibility with

norms and regulations, OC = openness to change, PA = participation, PC = psychological capital, RA =
recognition of achievements, TO = task orientation, TW = teamwork; *The items are in Spanish because
Table AI. they were built in this language

Corresponding author
Martín Solís can be contacted at: martin12cr@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com